Hawaii's Democratic lawmakers are criticizing Attorney General Jeff Sessions after he expressed amazement on a radio show that a "judge sitting on an island in the Pacific" could stop the president's travel ban. Above, Sessions at the Department of Justice in Washington on Tuesday.

A remark U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions made earlier this week about a judge in Hawaii isn't sitting well with the Aloha State.

In an interview on the The Mark Levin Show, Sessions was asked about the status of President Trump's executive order on travel.

"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power," Sessions replied.

The Justice Department tried to clarify Sessions' remarks on Thursday, according to CNN. "Hawaii is, in fact, an island in the Pacific — a beautiful one where the Attorney General's granddaughter was born," a spokesman told the network. "The point, however, is that there is a problem when a flawed opinion by a single judge can block the President's lawful exercise of authority to keep the entire country safe."

What gets me is that I'm sure if they really looked they could find legitimate grounds to fight it, but instead the left keeps on appealing to emotion and putting up irrational arguments. "We can't deport illegal Mexicans! They make up too big a portion of our voter base!" What "Stop the muslim ban!" It's not a ban on muslims, it's a tightening of border security to keep everybody in the US, muslims included, safer. Sometimes I wonder what the **** is going through their heads...

Say we want to block China for some reason (which is plausible)
We could never do it because MOST Taoists live in China.
Banning all of China would then be a "Religious test" and we wouldn't be able to protect ourselves.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

They switched from "citizens" to "any person", if the meant citizens only they would have written it that way.

First sentence defines the Who, second defines the What.
The only question up for interpretation "is subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
So be subject to the jurisdiction of the United states, courts have ruled you need 'Purposeful Availment'
This would mean either living within, or intending to live in again.
It also must be known by the authorities that have jurisdiction.

Therefore, it can be argued that illegals that pay taxes are purposefully availed, but no argument can be made for citizens of other countries.

Being in the United States (legally or not) makes you subject to equal protection. While applying for entry (like gallantarmor said) would not likely be enough to gain the protection acceptance for entry or presence in the country would be enough.

This is by supreme court precedent from the case Plyler v. Doe.

While it was a 5/4 ruling both the majority and the dissent agreed that all people within the United States are subject to the 14th amendment.

Submitting an application for a visa should satisfy as deliberate action for purposeful availment.

If that doesn't convince you, the first amendment protects religion as an abstract, not just an individual's rights to practice their religion. Given that, no law should be enacted that discriminates based on religion regardless of citizenship.

You mean a valid Visa or Greencard yes?
Just an application is nothing.
Fake ID is nothing too, if you fake it, then you are not availing.

Also, remember The Bill of Rights only applies to Citizens and those special cases from the 14th you brought up, not foreigners.
Plus, the government IS actually allowed to discriminate against Religion.
They would just need a 'necessary and compelling' reason, that is a different topic.

For the record, Jeff Sessions has fired anyone. The person reading that article has misread the title. The word 'dismisses' here means that Sessions suggested the judge was unimportant by ridiculing Hawaii as being just 'an island in the Pacific'. He didn't dismiss him from his position.

It's weird that you think the source of an IP ban matters. Major content posters/list maintainers on Funnyjunk are functionally equivalent to forum moderators. Infinitecreeper blocks a significant portion of the community from commenting on a significant portion of the visible content.

If you don't consider that censorship, I think you need to reevaluate your definition.

To add on, even if red thumbs would prevent a person from commenting, it doesn't prevent you from typing anything down, you are preventing yourself because of red thumbs on the internet.
Who cares if some people on one post disagree with your opinion, on another post you could very well get thumbs for it instead.
Don't let the community stop you from making comments, you might get red thumbs sometimes but that's the fun of it, why not take a risk and see if the general community agrees with you or not? Instead of saying this place is censored or a hivemind tons of websites have hiveminds, funnyjunk always seems to change to a different thing every couple of years. Like when the website supported Obama take a risk with your comment. Who knows? you might receive a ******** of thumbs.